CANARA BANK vs Uppal Brass Industries

THIS Revision Petition is directed against the Order dated 2nd/3rd May, 1994 passed by the State Commission, Delhi upholding the Order dated 17.6.1992 passed by the District Forum, Delhi.

IT is unnecessary to notice the facts in details or the orders passed by the two Forums for we are inclined to set aside the impugned orders and remand the case. Suffice it to say that accord ing to the complainant, he had an account with the appellant Bank and he drew two cheques bearing numbers 404680 dated 15.5.1990 and 404681 dated 1.6.1990 each for a sum of Rs. 5,000/ - in favour M/s. Sehdev Engineering Works, Phagwara and these were crossed as "account payee only" and sent to the said firm by ordinary post. The said firm did not receive the cheques but the complainant found from the statement of account that the amount of the cheques had been debited by the Bank on 23.5.1990. The complainant on enquiries from the Bank found that the two cheques had been paid across the counter to some person named Anil Kumar due to special crossings having been changed and the cheques had been made payable to bearer as also the date of 1.6.1990 was changed to 21st May, 1990. The complainant pleaded gross negligence of the Bank and its officials in making payment on alleged forged cheques and thus deficiency in service . The Bank pleaded in reply to the complaint, inter alia, that the said two cheques drawn in favour of M/s. Sehdev Engineering Works or bearer (emphasis supplied) with corrections duly authenticated by the drawer of the cheques were presented and the concerned officer tallied the signatures at all places appearing on the two cheques with the specimen available with the Bank and finding the same to be in order, paid the cheques at the counter. The negligence is denied.

THE photo copies of the two cheques are on our record. It is evident that so many cuttings have been made on the two cheques to make them bearer cheques and the date of 1.6.1990 has also been changed to 21.5.1990. The crucial question to be considered and to be determined is whether the cuttings had been authenticated by the drawer of the cheques or it was a forgery and hence negligence of the Bank in making payment on the interpolated forged cheques. The drawer in his affidavit had deposed that the cuttings and alterations do not bear his signatures. The Bank filed the report of the Hand Writing Expert, but it was not considered by the two Forums of any evidentiary value as the report did not bear the signature of the Expert and his affidavit was not filed. The submission of the Counsel for the Bank is that it was on account of a bona fide error that the Bank accidentally filed an unsigned copy of the opinion of the Hand Writing Expert. The signed copy of the opinion is filed before us, but we are not inclined to assess its value in this Revision Petition but would prefer to remand the case to the District Forum.

A definite conclusion has to be reached on the question of genuineness of the cheques or whether the alterations were duly authenticated by the drawer of the cheques or it is a forgery. The opinion of the Hand Writing Expert is of great evidentiary value as the opinion is rendered by him after careful examination by him with the aid of modern devices. The Redressal Forums cannot form a conclusion on the question of genuineness of a document on its own and they have to rely upon the Expert''s opinion and other evidence on the record to come to a correct conclusion. The Supreme Court has repeatedly pointed out how unsafe it is for a Court to form a conclusion on the question of genuineness of a disputed document in such circumstances on the basis of mere impression formed by visual comparison etc. by the Presiding Judge who has no training or expertise in the scrutiny and identification of handwriting. Similar view has also been taken by this National Commission. In this case, the report on the disputed signatures by the Hand Writing Expert states that he had carefully examined and compared with the aid of lenses, magnifiers and such geometrical appliances, which are needed for the purpose of comparison to the disputed signatures and writings and after examination of their originals and preparation of their enlargements in his laboratory, he formed an opinion. The opinion of the Hand Writing Expert will throw some light after it has been tested in the cross -examination.

WE , therefore, allow this Revision Petition and set aside the impugned orders and remand the case back to the District Forum for a fresh decision. The District Forum will allow the filing of a duly signed copy of the opinion of the Hand Writing Expert conditional on payment of Rs. 1,000/ - as costs to be paid by the Canara Bank, Delhi. The District Forum will give an opportunity to the complainant to file an Expert opinion in rebuttal, if any. If the Canara Bank chooses to file an affidavit of the Hand Writing Expert instead of oral examination, then an opportunity would be given to the complainant to cross -examine the Expert. The parties shall bear their own costs of the proceedings before us. Revision allowed. Matter remanded. _